I've visited AT on occasion, but didn't feel the need to register at "yet another forum". This thread had me jumping for the Register button, though.

I am hugely optimistic about EQ Next, albeit cautiously, because I've been burned several times before - by SoE, no less. I'm really looking forward to seeing just how much they can do with Storybrick and the claims they've made about their revolutionary NPC AI.

I'm not thrilled with the cell-shaded, cartoonish graphics and I hope the game play doesn't suffer a similar stroke of the trivialization/accessibilification brush. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt - a big leap of faith on my part, as no since Blizzard has managed to pull it off.

No more holy trinity class roles? We'll just have to see how that plays out. I've always simply considered it to be the tried and true basis for class design, lest the whole notion of group encounters devolve into a simple, boring group free-for-all against crowds of mobs with the difficulty of the encounter determined simply by the number of mobs in the wave. Maybe I'm just an odd-ball, but I *like* putting my character into a particular category and performing that role better than characters of a different category and vice-versa.

Damn my hopes and dreams, but I'll be one of the first in line to pay for the highest-end Collector's Edition at launch.

Damn my hopes and dreams, but I'll be one of the first in line to pay for the highest-end Collector's Edition at launch.

You signed up just to share this with us?

Are we really criticizing people's reasons for joining when it's not 'hey, free stuff!' I mean, come on, we all had that line that made us join. I can't even remember mine, but I'm sure from a certain perspective it was silly and unnecessary.

Damn my hopes and dreams, but I'll be one of the first in line to pay for the highest-end Collector's Edition at launch.

You signed up just to share this with us?

Are we really criticizing people's reasons for joining when it's not 'hey, free stuff!' I mean, come on, we all had that line that made us join. I can't even remember mine, but I'm sure from a certain perspective it was silly and unnecessary.

His post came across as a plug to me. The thread has no activity for a month and s/he pulls it off of page whatever to explicitly state s/he doesn't like the idea of joining 'yet another forum' but was compelled by the content to register and say despite reservations s/he intends to buy the most expensive copy of the game possible, whatever that may be... /shrug

Damn my hopes and dreams, but I'll be one of the first in line to pay for the highest-end Collector's Edition at launch.

You signed up just to share this with us?

Are we really criticizing people's reasons for joining when it's not 'hey, free stuff!' I mean, come on, we all had that line that made us join. I can't even remember mine, but I'm sure from a certain perspective it was silly and unnecessary.

His post came across as a plug to me. The thread has no activity for a month and s/he pulls it off of page whatever to explicitly state s/he doesn't like the idea of joining 'yet another forum' but was compelled by the content to register and say despite reservations s/he intends to buy the most expensive copy of the game possible, whatever that may be... /shrug

It's 4 paragraphs of reservations but still interested in buying it. It's a little early to be thinking SOE is plugging this game.. probably won't come out till the end of 2014? I feel the same way he does except I won't be buying it because it's free 2 play.

In other news, they mentioned in a tweet that Landmark will have combat of some kind, which is unexpected. I'm actually pretty confused at this point. They still talk about landmark coming out later this year, yet they are asking about things in polls on the site that would have had to be locked down months ago. I'm not sure how much I trust them, they know how to play the PR/social media game, but they have been notably lacking in giving concrete details for a game that's coming out in less than three months.

Sounds like it'll be a prettier Minecraft. It would be cool to have to kill some mobs for furs for tent creation, etc. Of contest with monsters for highly valuable building materials. Give the creation game another dimension that might attract people that aren't into building only.

The fact that they still talk like core design issues are being brainstormed confuses the hell out of me since the game is still supposed to happen this year. I'm also not sure at this point what makes it different from EQN, other than a complete lack of content. It sounds like it's basically an EQN alpha? That will probably be a good move if it ends up being awesome, and a disastrous one if all these new systems aren't shiny, polished, and working as promised.

It will have combat. I guess it could be completely unrelated to EQN combat (although I doubt it, that would be a huge waste of animation, etc resources), but the fact is everyone will assume it's EQN combat no matter what they say. If I'm confused, as someone who watched their presentations and read multiple interviews, how are they going to keep the average person from looking at Landmark and being confused?

Quote:

I guess they're saying "Landmark is random - Next is story-driven". But that's all the difference is from what I can tell.

The fact that they still talk like core design issues are being brainstormed confuses the hell out of me since the game is still supposed to happen this year. I'm also not sure at this point what makes it different from EQN, other than a complete lack of content. It sounds like it's basically an EQN alpha? That will probably be a good move if it ends up being awesome, and a disastrous one if all these new systems aren't shiny, polished, and working as promised.

A way a friend summarized the stream released EQN and Landmark info was "EQN = We'll let you make the game content for us, and you might even throw money our way too."

A way a friend summarized the stream released EQN and Landmark info was "EQN = We'll let you make the game content for us, and you might even throw money our way too."

Not entirely. From the presentation, Landmark is to get people started developing content, some of which EQN may use. However, ultimately, players are supposed to be able to design things and sell them (for real money, IIRC) through EQN to other players. The example used was that a player may design a tower. Anyone wanting to buy that tower to use pays for it and the player gets some money. Other players may use that tower in their own designs, say a castle. Every time the castle is sold, the player that created the tower used also gets a cut based on how much of the castle the tower is. So if you make a tower and someone takes that and just puts a flag on top, every time the 'new' tower is sold, you get a major chunk of the 'new' tower sales. However, if your tower is a tiny part of a large castle, you get a tiny cut of each large castle sale. At least, that was my interpretation of the presentation.

Assuming that SOE gets a small cut of each sale, it seems like an interesting monetization scheme, though I wonder if the end result of "everyone can design their own stuff" is still that most of the places in the world look the same because everyone is using the same tower for their designs since that's the highest rated one, etc.

I think they are going to be sorely disappointed if they are relying on the community to create content for them (paid or not). In any given community like that there are generally a few out of work pros or gifted amateurs that put out top quality stuff, and then truckloads of complete garbage. If the plan is to use Landmark content to fill their random EQN world (which is what it sounded like to me), then I have serious doubts about success of that plan. Typically, the only times you get really high quality fan made mods/content is when your in-house content creators drop the ball so thoroughly that people feel like they have to step in to fix the game (Bethesda's decade long span of terrible head modeling for example).

Yeah, that's what I mean about everything looking the same; I mean, I'm sure we could get some decent mod creators to create some ruins and towers and walls and houses, but if there are only eight decent houses, it doesn't matter how much time people spend, we're going to end up with every town looking the same.

I want to be interested in this, but it seems like so much is just hand wavy that I can't say anything beyond "Uh...I guess I'll look later."

I think they are going to be sorely disappointed if they are relying on the community to create content for them (paid or not). In any given community like that there are generally a few out of work pros or gifted amateurs that put out top quality stuff, and then truckloads of complete garbage. If the plan is to use Landmark content to fill their random EQN world (which is what it sounded like to me), then I have serious doubts about success of that plan. Typically, the only times you get really high quality fan made mods/content is when your in-house content creators drop the ball so thoroughly that people feel like they have to step in to fix the game (Bethesda's decade long span of terrible head modeling for example).

How is NWN:O doing w/r/t aspect? I haven't touched it in a while because I was completely bored of the stock classes and lack of options but their level builder seemed cool and people were already building series by the time I quit.

I haven't gotten it, but I found this. $20 for beta would definitely be worth it IMO, but I enjoy playing bad MMOs so I can argue about them on the internet intelligently, so it's a win regardless of the actual game quality

It's interesting that the Landmark alpha has been pushed for Feb 28th. The "end of the year" talk always smelled like bullshit.

I also have to say, "EverQuest Next Landmark" is possibly the most awkward game title I have seen in quite some time.

Also, this hands on is interesting, if not exactly full of new information. At the least they felt comfortable enough to put a blogger in front of it, so that's good.

Looks like they blew the "this year" promise. I really want to try out the game, but I'm not sure about paying for Landmark. I'm not much of a world builder and I don't think I'd get much enjoyment out of it, but I really can't wait to see the game engine and play around in the world.

If this was for EQN as well I would be plunking down $100 for the top tier pack in a heartbeat. I'm not sure I even want to pay $60 (or $20, even) for early access to Landmark.

Holy balls. They're actually charging you to beta test a game that will provide them free content for their other game. And people are doing it.

People really want into this kind of beta, so it's not ridiculous to charge for it. I'm all for games moving more to a patronage model rather than a retail/service one, it works a lot better for everyone.

Quote:

Also, original EQ player here. Did they have to ape the art style of WOW?

It's a good style, because it doesn't age. A lot of WoW's models and textures are ancient at this point, but they still all blend with the new stuff without looking completely out of place. It's also not really WoW style, it's just cartoony. It actually seems more Disney than anything.

Holy balls. They're actually charging you to beta test a game that will provide them free content for their other game. And people are doing it.

It's only an option and you get additional things that persist outside of the beta as a perk. You can still just go with the 'hope I get in' method or just wait for release.

Like Xavin said on the art... it's a style that holds up very well to age as well as lets you get away with a much weaker system. Plus, the graphics from EQ1 and EQ2 aren't exactly something to pine over.

Holy balls. They're actually charging you to beta test a game that will provide them free content for their other game. And people are doing it.

People really want into this kind of beta, so it's not ridiculous to charge for it. I'm all for games moving more to a patronage model rather than a retail/service one, it works a lot better for everyone.

You're right in that they'll charge what the market will bear, so this isn't entirely on them. As such, it's also ridiculous that people will pay for this. I'm going to take a wild guess that most of the people paying for this are the same losers who camped mobs going on multiple days; they just want to get a leg up on the 'competition' and grow their e-peen larger.

Quote:

It's a good style, because it doesn't age. A lot of WoW's models and textures are ancient at this point, but they still all blend with the new stuff without looking completely out of place.

It's just a cost-saving measure, then, so they don't have to overhaul their gfx system later. And they deserve credit for this why? Because they're being cheap? So they can integrate mobile devices?

Quote:

It's also not really WoW style, it's just cartoony. It actually seems more Disney than anything.

As far as MMORPGs are concerned, WOW popularized it. But this entire line of debate is just semantics. The point here is that I'm tired of that shit, having played years of WOW. I know a few others who many be as well...

Plus, the graphics from EQ1 and EQ2 aren't exactly something to pine over.

I disagree. For their time at launch, EQ graphics were pretty good generally, and easily the best for any MMORPG. I thought that the graphics struck a good--nay, a great--balance been realism and character. I still remember their troll and ogre designs, specifically.

I love a post that starts with disparaging people for experiencing extreme nostalgia for game design from 1999 and then ends with extreme nostalgia for game design from 1999. Goes down smooth. Has to be '99, though. '98 and '00 game design nostalgia is all bitter and leaves a terrible aftertaste. That's why we've never had another NOLF game.